Bludgeon wrote:Your argument: If people can't afford much, how is making sure they really, really can't afford it bad?
No, it's not.
Your argument is that adding liability insurance forces some people from not owning guns. I am saying the actual cost of guns forces some people to not own guns, thereby making it a luxury for people to own guns. But wait, it's a constitutional right so it's not a luxury, right? You say guns are cheap, but what if I want a fancy semi-automatic gun that costs a couple hundred bucks and I can't afford it. After all it's my "right" to own that gun, but I can't because I can't afford it. This is the NRA's central talking point that owning a semi-automatic is a "right," yet that right cannot be obtained by those who can't afford it.
Bludgeon wrote:What people in financial crisis can often not afford is the addition of another monthly bill and mandate that over time will cost tens/hundreds of times more than the weapon itself.
Kind of like a car, right? But wait, a car is a luxury not a right, and guns are a right and not a luxury, but they cost money that some can't afford. Ugh, I'm confused. Since when should a right cost money? There's the license and training and ammo. Oh, ammo that won't be used often.
Bludgeon wrote:ammo - rare purchase for most gun owners.
Really? I'd ask Dman to interject what "most" gun owners pay for ammo. I'm going to speculate many bring their guns to ranges and go hunting often enough that they purchase ammo more frequently then you assume. But, maybe I'm wrong.
Bludgeon wrote:Especially when the entire purpose of such a mandate is to discourage gun ownership altogether by pricing people out of the market of their own constitutional rights.
Do you have proof that this was the intent of the legislation or are you spewing talking points. Is the intent of insurance for anything to price people out of the market? I believe insurance is to cover your ass when something goes wrong, not to discourage making a purchase.
Bludgeon wrote:Further, if you're an intellectually honest person, you shouldn't try to pass it off as if the intention is anything other than a gun prohibition by use of financial disincentive.
Well, you can say that but:
An insurance program for firearms would help shift the cost of gun violence onto gun owners and away from all other taxpayers and victims. Right now, taxpayers — be it those who responsibly own gun, those who recklessly do, or those who have never even touched a firearm — take on the financial burden of guns: violent crimes are estimated to cost taxpayers $3.7 billion every year.
It's from your link and I don't think I need to bold the part where they talk about taxpayers taking on the burden. I'm surprised conservatives wouldn't be on the cheer leading squad for saving taxpayers money.